And just about every self-built computer is on a motherboard with unused PCI-e slots in a typical build. Even the OEM prebuilts I see, the ones we use all have plenty of unused PCI-e slots. True, if you're talking bargain basement pieces of junk then you might not see many, but if you're buying bargain basement pieces of junk, you probably aren't buying SSDs either (especially not the newest shiniest near-future SATA Express ones).

Yeah but, I've seen a few motherboards on Newegg that have one 16x slot and two to four PCI slots. And they are *SOCKET 1150*.

To give you an idea of how hilariously overpriced this thing is, you can get an LGA 2011 motherboard and Core i7-3930K for less than that CPU alone. Good luck selling this thing when at the same price range you can get a LGA 2011 motherboard + CPU for less than this CPU alone.

But hey, I'm sure kelco has already ordered his because gosh darn it 5GHZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just make sure you drink plenty of water, there is a heat wave going on and running this CPU could kill you.

E: Looks like you pick up the slightly lower clocked 9370 for 349 bucks which is at least isn't totally laughable.

What's the point? Massive power consumption, insane temperatures...really, there is absolutely no point to this launch. AMD would have been better off to just hunker down and put out something competitive later than be the laughing stock. They seem to be stuck in the mid-2000 GHz race still.

What's the point? Massive power consumption, insane temperatures...really, there is absolutely no point to this launch. AMD would have been better off to just hunker down and put out something competitive later than be the laughing stock. They seem to be stuck in the mid-2000 GHz race still.

The point is for AMD to shout out 5 GHZ! I don't why they would ever release this CPU other than this reason. It's purely a marketing gimmick. What I can tell from the scouring the internets (ok reading the SA thread) the CPU's are really nothing more than overclocked 8350's that have been binned to run at 5 ghz Turbo clocked. Those who have tried to overclock the 9590 have failed miserably in getting speeds above the Turbo core speed. I'd be interested to see if the 9370's could reliably hit 5 ghz but I doubt it, they are likely just more overclocked 8350's binned to 4.7 ghz and probably can't get any higher than that.'

I wonder if your standard AM3+ Motherboard can actually handle powering this beast, I'd be surprised if all AM3+ motherboards could handle the voltage requirements.

These things can barely keep up with Sandy Bridge-E CPU's in games and get wrecked by normal Haswell's and with Ivy Bridge-E coming soon to replace Sandy Bridge-E that's even worse news for AMD in the boutique CPU market.

What's the point? Massive power consumption, insane temperatures...really, there is absolutely no point to this launch. AMD would have been better off to just hunker down and put out something competitive later than be the laughing stock. They seem to be stuck in the mid-2000 GHz race still.

The point is for AMD to shout out 5 GHZ! I don't why they would ever release this CPU other than this reason. It's purely a marketing gimmick. What I can tell from the scouring the internets (ok reading the SA thread) the CPU's are really nothing more than overclocked 8350's that have been binned to run at 5 ghz Turbo clocked. Those who have tried to overclock the 9590 have failed miserably in getting speeds above the Turbo core speed. I'd be interested to see if the 9370's could reliably hit 5 ghz but I doubt it, they are likely just more overclocked 8350's binned to 4.7 ghz and probably can't get any higher than that.

These things can barely keep up with Sandy Bridge-E CPU's in games and get wrecked by normal Haswell's and with Ivy Bridge-E coming soon to replace Sandy Bridge-E that's even worse news for AMD in the boutique CPU market.

Right, and it just has me shaking my head. There was a time when it was a decision to go with Intel.

There is some credence to be given to the fact that AMD are in other markets and doing well. This is true and great; we can have them around for a some time to come, thankfully. But this launch seems to go against that idea, as if AMD still see themselves as competitive in the high-end and it is that that has me embarrassed for them. Do what you do well and stay out of the rest until you are truly a viable alternative. This launch makes AMD look needy.

Without pricing information, it's a solid performer except that performance per watt... ahem... sucks and cooling requirements are pretty serious. Still, it hangs with quadcores across the Sandy Bridge/SB-E through Haswell range for the majority of tasks and still does well on the small subset of tasks that favor piledriver.

Add in pricing information though, it's so funny that you might just pee your pants. I know AMD has to hand-pick these chips and there's some inherent cost to that, but a $900+ CPU needs to compete with the very highest end Intel chips... not stuff that goes for 1/3 the price or less.

It's sad that the MHz race is still with us. Intel started it, arguably with the Pentium (one) era chips -- and then had to try to explain why PPros at similar clockspeeds were better-- but AMD really deserves a little blame for "Performance Rating" their CPUs rather than reporting actual MHz. I still see folks preoccupied with clockspeed and you have to try to explain that a 3.3 GHz Haswell quadcore is really better than their 3.4 GHz Pentium 4... and not by a tiny margin.

So we now know that a 4.7-5.0 GHz AMD part is equivalent to a 3.3-3.9 GHz Intel part. People have got to lose the more Mhz = better mentality and look at actual performance. (Car analogy narrowly avoided.)

It's sad that the MHz race is still with us. Intel started it, arguably with the Pentium (one) era chips -- and then had to try to explain why PPros at similar clockspeeds were better-- but AMD really deserves a little blame for "Performance Rating" their CPUs rather than reporting actual MHz. I still see folks preoccupied with clockspeed and you have to try to explain that a 3.3 GHz Haswell quadcore is really better than their 3.4 GHz Pentium 4... and not by a tiny margin.

We have Intel to blame more for doting on MHz, MHz, MHz and more MHz. "Performance Ratings" were a reaction to Intel's deceptions and nothing more.

It's sad that the MHz race is still with us. Intel started it, arguably with the Pentium (one) era chips -- and then had to try to explain why PPros at similar clockspeeds were better-- but AMD really deserves a little blame for "Performance Rating" their CPUs rather than reporting actual MHz. I still see folks preoccupied with clockspeed and you have to try to explain that a 3.3 GHz Haswell quadcore is really better than their 3.4 GHz Pentium 4... and not by a tiny margin.

We have Intel to blame more for doting on MHz, MHz, MHz and more MHz. "Performance Ratings" were a reaction to Intel's deceptions and nothing more.

Without Intel spamming MHz everywhere, PRs would have had no meaning.

Do you think that AMD are blowing of responsibility with the "they started it" rationale too? Acceptable behavior for three year-olds perhaps, but not so well for companies.

AMD are responsible. I think it is more of an "explain this anomaly" rather than a "blame" thing anyway. It's not like it doesn't work.

We have Intel to blame more for doting on MHz, MHz, MHz and more MHz. "Performance Ratings" were a reaction to Intel's deceptions and nothing more.

Revisionist history.

PR ratings started with Cyrix with their Pentium clones. Intel had no need of "PR ratings" as Pentiums were well designed and outperformed their competitors. There's nothing "deceiving" about a Pentium 120. There was plenty of deception with a Cyrix 6x86 PR120+

PR ratings were an attempt to equate to Intel because Intel is the de facto standard. If Intel decides to use Mhz as their product numbering scheme, their competition has to follow suit somehow. That's not Intel being deceptive, that's Intel using a hard number to differentiate chips in a generation. Once Intel abandoned Mhz, things got harder, not easier. Today there's no way to know by looking at an AMD chip's designation how it compares to an Intel i3, i5, or i7.

PR ratings were an attempt to equate to Intel because Intel is the de facto standard. If Intel decides to use Mhz as their product numbering scheme, their competition has to follow suit somehow. That's not Intel being deceptive, that's Intel using a hard number to differentiate chips in a generation. Once Intel abandoned Mhz, things got harder, not easier. Today there's no way to know by looking at an AMD chip's designation how it compares to an Intel i3, i5, or i7.

Who gives a shit about Cyrix? I was thinking more of the numbers AMD were using - as we are discussing AMD - in the AthlonXP/64 days. As for Pentiums being "well designed" and "outperforming", the chip we're comparing with here - Northwood and Prescott, etc. was so well designed that Intel put it in the bin (presumably with heat proof gloves) as soon as it could.

As Intel competes with Intel's installed base, how do we compare a Core 2 Quad Q9550 with a Core i5 3570? Surely a 9550 is faster than a 3570, right? That extra "Q" has to mean something? It's not just AMD's chips that cannot be compared with Intel's, it is also Intel's.

As Intel competes with Intel's installed base, how do we compare a Core 2 Quad Q9550 with a Core i5 3570? Surely a 9550 is faster than a 3570, right? That extra "Q" has to mean something? It's not just AMD's chips that cannot be compared with Intel's, it is also Intel's.

Those who actually care about performance compare the way they always have; via benchmarks that speak to their use case. Whether it's Passmark, 3DMark, Photoshop filters, x264 encoding... whatever, these test have been around (and been used) forever.

Sure, 95% of the computer-using population has never heard of these things. But that same 95% have virtually never needed to care about performance. New computer is faster than old computer. That's good enough.

Sure, 95% of the computer-using population has never heard of these things. But that same 95% have virtually never needed to care about performance. New computer is faster than old computer. That's good enough.

95% of computer-using population doesn't know how to open their case, so aren't at all concerned about what socket the machine is using, nor would know that it's possible to upgrade a computer.

Heck, most of the numpties here at work will throw out a perfectly good computer after 2 years, just because the machine has ground to a halt due to the hundreds of adware and malware packages running on them. It's easier to go buy another £300 heap of crap from the local supermarket than it is to get the old one reinstalled.

Agreed. Not only do none of these people care how fast their CPU is, they more than likely don't know (and don't care) that AMD exists. None of the 95% goes looking for AMD product. They might (purely accidentally) end up with an AMD-powered laptop because that's what's cheap at Best Buy this week, but that's it.

So AMD's little numbers stunt here is competing for, at best 5% of the market. And even then, it's only the tiny fraction of 5% that don't already have a matching/better Intel-based solution, and don't mind paying more for this than a faster Intel-based solution, and are okay with a TDP higher than most two-socket servers.

And none of these people care about actual performance, or they'd be buying something that performed better, for cheaper. They just want to show off their 5GHz e-peen. Which brings me right back to "performance doesn't matter."

Agreed. Not only do none of these people care how fast their CPU is, they more than likely don't know (and don't care) that AMD exists. None of the 95% goes looking for AMD product. They might (purely accidentally) end up with an AMD-powered laptop because that's what's cheap at Best Buy this week, but that's it.

So AMD's little numbers stunt here is competing for, at best 5% of the market. And even then, it's only the tiny fraction of 5% that don't already have a matching/better Intel-based solution, and don't mind paying more for this than a faster Intel-based solution, and are okay with a TDP higher than most two-socket servers.

And none of these people care about actual performance, or they'd be buying something that performed better, for cheaper. They just want to show off their 5GHz e-peen. Which brings me right back to "performance doesn't matter."

In all fairness, I rather doubt particularly many of those same people know much about Intel either. Were I to ask my mother I would guess she's heard of Intel but not much more. She definitely has no idea what's in her computer.OEM wins give you the masses, halo products give you some free marketing from nerds like us. Of course this particular CPU seems to be more of a crown of thorns than a halo.